UTGB Vol 5.pdf - Robson Hall Faculty of Law

opposition criticism but they were not a solution to the underlying issues that
were raised through the legislative process. These issues include over
consumption, consumer dependency on an imported commodity, and the
continued consumption of hydrocarbon energy sources.
Nonetheless, Bill11 provided several important observations as a unique case of
effective lobbying. First, even in the face of strong opposition, Bill 11 was not
barred from becoming legislation, hit that opposition drastically affected the
nature and ultimate effect of the bill when it became law. For example, Bill 11
no longer embodies a rate freezing provision. Second, the effective debate in the
Legislative Assembly acted to educate ministers about the policy considerations
and consequences of Bill 11 on all consumer groups. As the debate progressed
on Bill 11 it was apparent issues became more focused and more researched. In
fact, debate often reflected current expert opinion on natural gas regulation.
Third, an accurate representation of public opinion was taken into account
when amending Bill 11. In particular, Bill 11 as amended exhibits the interests
of all five presenters from the committee stage.
Finally, although the amendments on Bill 11 appeased the electorate, it fell
short of aggressive legislation that would answer some of the issues raised during
the legislative process. As previously mentioned, the bill did not attempt to
address broader political issues, such as the consumption of hydrocarbons,
Manitoba's economy, including Manitoba Hydro's debt to equity ratio, and
alternate sources of heating energy. Furthermore, although the bill's original
objective was to protect the consumer's interest by ensuring natural gas remains
affordable, experts do not support subsidized natural gas prices, and instead
promote clear market signals. Therefore, parliament should avoid regulating
natural gas prices and it is further submitted that any subsequent legislation
should deal with the aforementioned broader issues. The value of future natural
gas bills that fail to do this should be seriously questioned.
In conclusion, Bill 11 was rendered to have little effect because of its delayed
coming into force date. However, this does not necessarily reflect a shortcoming
of the legislative process. In fact, debates in both the House and during the
committee stage afforded parliament an educated and comprehensive
understanding of stakeholder concerns with respect to natural gas regulation.
This valuable insight was incorporated into the amended version of Bill 11.
Although the legislative process did not create a forum for innovative drafting
to deal with the broader issues surrounding Bill 11, it diq create a forum that
effectively scrutinized the proposed law, and incorporated the interests of the
majority therein.